Nothing
against women in general or Hillary in person, but she is not the woman
I want to fulfill, in the literal sense for the US, the prophecy in Isaiah 3: 12.

Mind
you, the problem is not the gender. And the prophecy is already being
fulfilled in the allegorical sense that matters: that people should be seeing gender
relationship as warfare.

Sorry, guys, when we insist on making it a fight, we're going to lose.

Not
that women really win. Nobody really wins the battle between the sexes.
But when we insist on making it a battle, women may lose the battles,
but they end up being in charge of everything. Whether they are the
power behind the throne or the occupants of the throne, they end up
controlling things. That's what the prophecy is all about.

And that is bad. We need balance. We need everyone to participate as equals, regardless of gender or other personal traits.

Fighting is the wrong thing to do.

Frankly, if it's between Trump and Hillary, I'm most likely voting for Hillary. Trump is a loose cannon.

And, this is where he is fooling everybody: Trump is just as much old guard as anyone else in the field. More so in many ways.

The old guard is all about money. Getting lots of money and "doing stuf with it".

Trump
doesn't have a lot (relatively speaking) of money of his own. What he
has is money he gets people to give or lend him. What he does with it is
sell what he thinks people are buying. (And, frankly, his record there
is pretty mixed. He has not demonstrated that he knows how to get out
of debt in any other way than to find something new to sell. I don't
think he understands generating real value (http://free-is-not-free.blogspot.jp/2013/07/where-does-value-come-from.html).)

He
just happened to tap into the frustrations, and he is selling the
obvious political salve now. Salve is at best a temporary measure.
Salves quit working if you don't fix the underlying problems.

His brand of salve is pretty caustic, too. Wall around the US? We
were celebrating the fall of the Wall in Berlin just a few years ago.

If you look at what he has been selling as an entrepeneur, you have an
idea what he will sell when the salve no longer works. He is old guard
at it's worst.

If you think you want to elect someone who knows how to use money,
look at Bill Gates. And then ask yourself why you want to elect someone
who knows how to manipulate people, facts, and markets like that. Charisma has its limits.

Back to the topic of manipulating the primaries.

At the time, I was thinking of such a tactic as mostly a propaganda
move. Poison the well. Paint the whole party black by association with Trump.

But
I also thought about the possibility of an attempt to divide and
subvert the opponents by orchestrating mass "defections" from one's own
party to support a non-viable candidate, and otherwise reduce the
effective influence of the other party. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossover_voting)

It has happened
before, in local elections. And the influence of party line crossing in
"key" voting districts in past presidential elections has also been the
subject of political analyses.

Who
drew the lines in the first place? There is a problem here. Actually,
the lines are a political weapon, used to divide a people against
itself. But this problem also demonstrates one of the serious weaknesses
of the two party system as it presently exists. If Republicans were
thinking in terms of warfare, it would be time to go vote in the
Democratic primaries for Sanders.

Start crashing their party.

In many cases, you can go back and vote in the Republican primary, too.

Wow.
It's not really a problem if both parties allow crossing the lines.
Unless you think that giving the people the power to turn the incumbents
out is a problem.

I'm thinking it may be a good way to help really ensure a decent turnover in government.

This sword has two edges. Still wielding a sword is like wielding an axe. It's a dangerous business. We want to be careful where and who we cut, and we need to remember that every stroke has a possibility of being turned against us.

This is one fact about war that every individual hungering for a rumble should remember: Swords regularly injure the wielder thereof. You will not cut just the enemy. You will cut yourself and people you care about.

Now, as for the ultimate possibility of Trump getting elected, let's open our eyes and take a long view.

First,
Hillary -- Eight years ago, she would have been a disaster as
president. At least, at first. She has gained a lot of experience since
then, and it's evident that she is no longer the idealist that would
have initially wrought havoc in the White House.

Next,
Sanders -- Yes, he could still cause some serious problems in the White
House until he learns the ropes, learns the limits of the office, and
the limits of political power. As long as he remains a political socialist, he will be liable to make a mess of things. But he is definitely showing more
understanding of political realities as his campaign continues.

Cruz? -- No. He is not showing evidence that he even wants to understand the underlying issues. Not yet.

Rubio?
-- The media portrays him as SO YOUNG! He's the same age as Cruz, and
his faith in human nature which the media has played as naivity and
weakness is something I want in a president. And he has a good record in
Florida, shows flexibility, shows an ability to bring people together,
and shows tenacity for issues he understands to be important. He was the
most dangerous to the old guard.

I liked Rubio the
best of the candidates in the two major parties, but now he has dropped
out. I don't understand why he's endorsing Trump. Maybe that's more
media misinterpretation.

Kasich? -- Initially, he
seemed too removed from the political processes to survive the current
political climate, but he is showing more ability to articulate his
case. His record is good, and his politics are sound. I could vote for a
Kasich - Rubio ticket.

The major party candidates have
"grown" in a way since last fall. Even Cruz, really. Last fall, the
media was able to portray Hillary as the only serious candidate. Now we
have more serious candidates.

Looking at the minor
party candidates, I'm sort of interested in Gary Johnson. His record
indicates the sort of competence the office requires these days and the
sort of idealism and leadership that could be effective in the major
course corrections coming up.

Last fall, I was thinking it was about time for a minor party candidate to be elected. I'm not sure I've changed my mind.

They
say the office makes the man, and it's true. Every candidate, including
Trump, would likely be able to grown into the presidency. Trump, as he
is now, would do some significant damage in the process.

Damage
in terms of helping upset the status quo is not necessary a bad thing.
The damage I'm worried about is what Trump thinks he understands about
the Constitution, and the bad precedents he could set while fixing his
understanding. I have similar concerns about Cruz, Sanders, and Hillary
Clinton, but the concerns are not as deep. Less concerns about Hillary than eight and four years ago.

I don't
really think Trump's candidacy is a direct product of Democratic
conspiracy, but Democrats could have played key parts in getting his
candidacy started and in feeding the media frenzy that is helping drive it. Whether the line
crossing is part of deliberate efforts to undermine the Republican party
or not is not really important. It's a two-edged sword.

Some of those line crossers will actually stay in the Republican party for a while, too, which is also just fine.

If Trump's candidacy
were really part of a conspiracy to undermine the Republicans' game
plan, I'm going to say now that it won't work that way.

Here's the real reason for the race: to get the citizens thinking in terms of what they as individuals should be doing to solve their own problems and to help solve the problems of the people around them. Who wins is not so important as long as the voice of the people is not muted.

The president is not king for four years. He's just one part of the picture. Congress, the courts, and the people. Four powers to provide checks and balances.

(Yeah, four. Not the three branches of government we used to be taught when I was in the primary grades. Four branches. Sovereignty, the power, comes from the people.)